1 / 22

Lecture 17: Instruction Level Parallelism

Lecture 17: Instruction Level Parallelism. Computer Engineering 585 Fall 2001. Techniques. ILP within a Basic Block. Basic block : straight line code – single entry, single exit. Gcc branch: 17% typical basic block 6-7 instructions. How much ILP?

leona
Download Presentation

Lecture 17: Instruction Level Parallelism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 17: Instruction Level Parallelism Computer Engineering 585 Fall 2001

  2. Techniques

  3. ILP within a Basic Block • Basic block: straight line code – single entry, single exit. • Gcc branch: 17% • typical basic block 6-7 instructions. How much ILP? • Beyond single block to get more instruction level parallelism • Loop level parallelism one opportunity, SW and HW

  4. Loop Level Parallelism For (i=1; i<=1000; i++) X[i] = X[i] + Y[i]; • No dependence between the data values produced in iteration i and the values needed in iteration i+j. • ILP of 1000 loop bodies available! • How about the intervening branch instruction between loop iterations!

  5. FP Loop: Where are the Hazards? Loop: LD F0,0(R1) ;F0=vector element ADDD F4,F0,F2 ;add scalar from F2 SD 0(R1),F4 ;store result SUBI R1,R1,8 ;decrement pointer 8B (DW) BNEZ R1,Loop ;branch R1!=zero NOP ;delayed branch slot Instruction Instruction Latency inproducing result using result clock cycles FP ALU op Another FP ALU op 3 FP ALU op Store double 2 Load double FP ALU op 1 Load double Store double 0 Integer op Integer op 0 • Where are the stalls?

  6. FP Loop Showing Stalls 1 Loop: LD F0,0(R1) ;F0=vector element 2 stall 3 ADDD F4,F0,F2 ;add scalar in F2 4 stall 5 stall 6 SD 0(R1),F4 ;store result 7 SUBI R1,R1,8 ;decrement pointer 8B (DW) 8 BNEZ R1,Loop ;branch R1!=zero 9 stall ;delayed branch slot • 9 clock cycles: Rewrite code to minimize stalls? Instruction Instruction Latency inproducing result using result clock cycles FP ALU op Another FP ALU op 3 FP ALU op Store double 2 Load double FP ALU op 1

  7. Revised FP Loop Minimizing Stalls 1 Loop: LD F0,0(R1) 2 stall 3 ADDD F4,F0,F2 4 SUBI R1,R1,8 5 BNEZ R1,Loop ;delayed branch 6 SD 8(R1),F4;altered when move past SUBI 6 clock cycles: Unroll loop 4 times to make code faster? Swap BNEZ and SD by changing address of SD Instruction Instruction Latency inproducing result using result clock cycles FP ALU op Another FP ALU op 3 FP ALU op Store double 2 Load double FP ALU op 1

  8. Unroll Loop Four Times (straightforward way) 1 Loop: LD F0,0(R1) 2 ADDD F4,F0,F2 3 SD 0(R1),F4 ;drop SUBI & BNEZ 4 LD F6,-8(R1) 5 ADDD F8,F6,F2 6 SD -8(R1),F8 ;drop SUBI & BNEZ 7 LD F10,-16(R1) 8 ADDD F12,F10,F2 9 SD -16(R1),F12 ;drop SUBI & BNEZ 10 LD F14,-24(R1) 11 ADDD F16,F14,F2 12 SD -24(R1),F16 13 SUBI R1,R1,#32 ;alter to 4*8 14 BNEZ R1,LOOP 15 NOP 15 + 4 x (1+2) = 27 clock cycles, or 6.8 per iteration Assumes R1 is multiple of 4 Rewrite loop to minimize stalls?

  9. Unrolled Loop That Minimizes Stalls 1 Loop: LD F0,0(R1) 2 LD F6,-8(R1) 3 LD F10,-16(R1) 4 LD F14,-24(R1) 5 ADDD F4,F0,F2 6 ADDD F8,F6,F2 7 ADDD F12,F10,F2 8 ADDD F16,F14,F2 9 SD 0(R1),F4 10 SD -8(R1),F8 11 SD -16(R1),F12 12 SUBI R1,R1,#32 13 BNEZ R1,LOOP 14 SD 8(R1),F16 ; 8-32 = -24 14 clock cycles, or 3.5 per iteration When safe to move instructions? • What assumptions made when moved code? • OK to move store past SUBI even though changes register • OK to move loads before stores: get right data? • When is it safe for compiler to do such changes?

  10. Compiler Perspectives on Code Movement • Definitions: compiler concerned about dependences in program, whether or not a HW hazard depends on a given pipeline. • Try to schedule to avoid hazards. • (True) Data dependences (RAW if a hazard for HW) • Instruction i produces a result used by instruction j, or • Instruction j is data dependent on instruction k, and instruction k is data dependent on instruction i. • If dependent, can’t execute in parallel. • Easy to determine for registers (fixed names). • Hard for memory: • Does 100(R4) = 20(R6)? • From different loop iterations, does 20(R6) = 20(R6)?

  11. Where are the data dependences? 1 Loop: LD F0,0(R1) 2 ADDD F4,F0,F2 3 SUBI R1,R1,8 4 BNEZ R1,Loop ;delayed branch 5 SD 8(R1),F4 ;altered when move past SUBI

  12. Compiler Perspectives on Code Movement • Another kind of dependence called name dependence: two instructions use same name (register or memory location) but don’t exchange data • Antidependence (WAR if a hazard for HW) • Instruction j writes a register or memory location that instruction i reads from and instruction i is executed first • Output dependence (WAW if a hazard for HW) • Instruction i and instruction j write the same register or memory location; ordering between instructions must be preserved.

  13. Where are the name dependences? 1 Loop: LD F0,0(R1) 2 ADDD F4,F0,F2 3 SD 0(R1),F4 ;drop SUBI & BNEZ 4 LD F0,-8(R1) 5 ADDD F4,F0,F2 6 SD -8(R1),F4 ;drop SUBI & BNEZ 7 LD F0,-16(R1) 8 ADDD F4,F0,F2 9 SD -16(R1),F4 ;drop SUBI & BNEZ 10 LD F0,-24(R1) 11 ADDD F4,F0,F2 12 SD -24(R1),F4 13 SUBI R1,R1,#32 ;alter to 4*8 14 BNEZ R1,LOOP 15 NOP How can we remove them?

  14. Compiler Perspectives on Code Movement • Again Name Dependences are Hard for Memory Accesses • Does 100(R4) = 20(R6)? • From different loop iterations, does 20(R6) = 20(R6)? • Our example required compiler to know that if R1 doesn’t change then:0(R1) ≠ -8(R1) ≠ -16(R1) ≠ -24(R1) There were no dependences between some loads and stores so they could be moved by each other

  15. Compiler Perspectives on Code Movement • Final kind of dependence called control dependence • Example if p1 {S1;}; if p2 {S2;}; S1 is control dependent on p1 and S2 is control dependent on p2 but not on p1.

  16. Compiler Perspectives on Code Movement • Two (obvious) constraints on control dependences: • An instruction that is control dependent on a branch cannot be moved before the branch so that its execution is no longer controlled by the branch. • An instruction that is not control dependent on a branch cannot be moved to after the branch so that its execution is controlled by the branch. • Control dependences relaxed to get parallelism; preserve order of exceptions and data flow.

  17. Where are the control dependences? 1 Loop: LD F0,0(R1) 2 ADDD F4,F0,F2 3 SD 0(R1),F4 4 SUBI R1,R1,8 5 BEQZ R1,exit 6 LD F0,0(R1) 7 ADDD F4,F0,F2 8 SD 0(R1),F4 9 SUBI R1,R1,8 10 BEQZ R1,exit 11 LD F0,0(R1) 12 ADDD F4,F0,F2 13 SD 0(R1),F4 14 SUBI R1,R1,8 15 BEQZ R1,exit ....

  18. When Safe to Unroll Loop? • Example: Where are data dependencies? (A,B,C distinct & nonoverlapping) for (i=1; i<=100; i=i+1) { A[i+1] = A[i] + C[i]; /* S1 */ B[i+1] = B[i] + A[i+1];} /* S2 */ 1. S2 uses the value, A[i+1], computed by S1 in the same iteration. 2. S1 uses a value computed by S1 in an earlier iteration, since iteration i computes A[i+1] which is read in iteration i+1. The same is true of S2 for B[i] and B[i+1].This is a “loop-carried dependence”: between iterations • Implies that iterations are dependent, and can’t be executed in parallel • Not the case for our prior example; eachiteration was distinct

  19. HW Schemes: Instruction Parallelism • Why in HW at run time? • Not all dependences are known at compile time. • Compiler simpler. • Code for one machine runs well on another. • Key idea: Allow instructions behind stall to proceed DIVD F0,F2,F4 ADDD F10,F0,F8 SUBD F12,F8,F14 • Enables out-of-order execution => out-of-order completion. • ID stage checked both for structural & data hazards. • Separate structural & data hazard checks. • Scoreboard dates to CDC 6600 in 1963.

  20. HW Schemes: Instruction Parallelism • Out-of-order execution divides ID stage: 1. Issue—decode instructions, check for structural hazards 2. Read operands—wait until no data hazards, then read operands • Scoreboards allow instruction to execute whenever 1 & 2 hold, not waiting for prior instructions. • CDC 6600: In order issue, out of order execution, out of order commit ( also called completion).

  21. Scoreboard Implications • Out-of-order completion => WAR, WAW hazards? • Solutions for WAR: • Queue both the operation and copies of its operands. • Read registers only during Read Operands stage. • For WAW, must detect hazard: stall until other instruction completes. • Need to have multiple instructions in execution phase => multiple execution units or pipelined execution units. • Scoreboard keeps track of dependences, state or operations. • Scoreboard replaces ID, EX, WB with 4 stages.

  22. Processor Micro-arch. with Scoreboard Registers Data buses FP mult FP divide FP add Integer unit Scoreboard Control/ Control/ status status

More Related